Tahany Ibrahim. El-Wardany et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 13, 201914397568 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/397,568 10/28/2014 Tahany Ibrahim El-Wardany 60363US01 (U320036US) 7682 87423 7590 12/13/2019 Cantor Colburn LLP - Otis Elevator INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, PAMELA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/13/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): frederic.tenney@otis.com frederic.tenney@otis.com usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAHANY IBRAHIM EL-WARDANY, WAYDE R. SCHMIDT, XIAODONG LUO, ANTHONY COONEY, and JOHN T. PITTS Appeal 2018-001941 Application 14/397,568 Technology Center 3600 BEFORE ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, LILAN REN, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17. Final Act. 2–6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Otis Elevator Company.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-001941 Application 14/397,568 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “braking systems, such as those used to slow and/or stop an elevator car or counterweight, for example in an over speed condition. More particularly, the embodiments can relate to an elevator safety brake system having a composite friction surface.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A brake element, comprising: a friction material including a polymer-based ceramic matrix composite material having a plurality of fibers; wherein the plurality of fibers are arranged at an angle to a braking direction, and an orientation of the fibers is maintained throughout a thickness of the ceramic matrix composite material, wherein a coefficient of friction of the friction material is a function of the fiber angle relative to the braking direction. Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 9). REFERENCES The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are: Krenkel Rosenlocher Takayuki US 6,668,985 B2 US 7,441,635 B2 JP 9071769 Dec. 30, 2003 Oct. 28, 2008 Mar. 3, 1997 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–8, 11, 12, and 15–17 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Takayuki and Rosenlocher. Final Act. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 9, 10, 13, and 14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Takayuki, Rosenlocher, and Krenkel. Final Act. 6. Appeal 2018-001941 Application 14/397,568 3 OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant has identified reversible error, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Claim 1 In rejecting claim 12, the Examiner finds that Takayuki teaches all limitations except a polymer-based ceramic matrix composite and “a coefficient of friction . . .” for which Rosenlocher is cited. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that Takayuki teaches “an orientation of the fibers is maintained throughout a thickness of the ceramic matrix composite material” because the fibers in Takayuki are attached to the surface of the ceramic base material. Appeal Br. 5 (arguing that the fibers in Takayuki “are bonded or attached to a plate-shaped ceramic base material on the surface of the base material of the brake shoes” and 2 Appellant does not present separate arguments for the obviousness rejections of claims 2–8, 11, 12, 15–17. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 5–7. The obviousness rejection of claims 2–8, 11, 12, and 15–17 therefore stands or falls with that of claim 1. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2018-001941 Application 14/397,568 4 may alternatively be “laminated to the surface of the plate-shaped ceramic base material”). From the outset, we note that the claim language “an orientation of the fibers is maintained throughout a thickness of the ceramic matrix composite material” requires no more than the orientation of the fibers to be maintained throughout some––but not the entire––thickness of the ceramic material. See Claim 1, Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added). Appellant’s argument that the fibers in Takayuki are attached to the surface of the ceramic material3 therefore does structurally distinguish the prior art. Moreover, the Examiner finds that figures 3 through 6 in Takayuki show a ceramic material incorporating fibers that have a constant orientation through the thickness of the ceramic material. Final Act. 3, 7. Appellant’s argument does not address the Examiner’s findings with regard to figures 3 and 6 and in fact acknowledges that “the fibers shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 are arranged such that the fibers extend continuously through a thickness of the insert.” Appeal Br. 5–6. We are therefore unpersuaded that Appellant’s argument identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s findings with regard to this claim limitation. Appellant next argues that “only an end of each of the fibers is exposed to the braking surface” in Takayuki which does not teach or suggest a “plurality of fibers are arranged at an angle to a braking direction” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant, however, does not sufficiently explain why this limitation excludes the prior art structure having fiber ends 3 We emphasize that Appellant does not support this argument with citation to Takayuki. See Appeal Br. 5. The argument is therefore also unpersuasive as lacking evidentiary support. Appeal 2018-001941 Application 14/397,568 5 exposed to the surface. Appellant merely argues, without sufficient explanation, that the prior art “fibers within each layer cannot be considered arranged at an angle to a sliding or braking direction” as recited. Id. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s finding that figures 6b through 6d of Takayuki specifically show fibers 27 being arranged at an angle to the braking direction. See Ans. 9. Appellant’s argument lacking in both evidentiary support and structural distinction over the prior art does not persuade us of reversible error. Appellant lastly argues that a skilled artisan would not have combined Takayuki with Rosenlocher to arrive at the apparatus recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that Takayuki teaches brake shoes for an elevator which are intended to stop the movement of the elevator and Rosenlocher teaches away from “such dynamic applications.” Id. Appellant cites the following statement from Rosenlocher as support: In contrast to brake pads for brakes used in the driving mode (service brakes, destined to decelerate a vehicle in motion to a lower velocity) which must have a sufficient resistance to abrasion and a high sliding, or dynamic, friction coefficient, only static friction counts for brake pads for parking brakes. Rosenlocher 1:49–54; see Appeal Br. 7 (citing Rosenlocher 1:49). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive for multiple reasons. First and foremost, Appellant does not show that Rosenlocher teaches away from “the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that “in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant”). Appellant’s argument also lacks factual support with citation to Takayuki. Appeal 2018-001941 Application 14/397,568 6 See Appeal Br. 7. Appellant’s argument also does not address––and therefore does not identify reversible error in––the Examiner’s rationale for the obviousness rejection. Compare id., with Final Act. 4 (providing that a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings for various reasons including performance improvement in the brake pads); see also Ans. 10 (describing the similarities between the references). Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 because no reversible error has been identified by Appellant in the Examiner’s analysis. Claims 9, 10, 13, & 14 Appellant’s sole argument for claims 9, 10, 13, and 14 is that “Krenkel fails to cure the defects of Takayuki and Rosenlocher with respect to Claims 1 and 12.” Appeal Br. 7. Having found no such defects, we affirm the rejection of claims 9, 10, 13, and 14 for the reasons provided supra. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 11, 12, 15–17 103(a) Takayuki, Rosenlocher 1–8, 11, 12, 15–17 9, 10, 13, 14 103(a) Takayuki, Rosenlocher, Krenkel 9, 10, 13, 14 Overall Outcome 1–17 Appeal 2018-001941 Application 14/397,568 7 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation